The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city's long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

The clash escalates the dispute over the same-sex marriage proposal between the council and the archdiocese, which has generally stayed out of city politics.

Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

"All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow," Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

The church's influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as "somewhat childish." Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city's relationship with the church than give in to its demands.

"They don't represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure," said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.

The standoff appears to be among the harshest between a government and a faith-based group over the rights of same-sex couples. Advocates for same-sex couples said they could not immediately think of other places where a same-sex marriage law had set off a break with a major faith-based provider of social services.

The council is expected to pass the same-sex marriage bill next month, but the measure continues to face strong opposition from a number of groups that are pushing for a referendum on the issue.

"Lets say an individual caterer is a staunch Christian and someone wants him to do a cake with two grooms on top," said council member Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 6), the sponsor of the amendment. "Why can't they say, based on their religious beliefs, 'I can't do something like that'?"

After the vote, the archdiocese sent out a statement accusing the council of ignoring the right of religious freedom. Gibbs said Wednesday that without Alexander's amendment and other proposed changes, the measure has too narrow an exemption. She said religious groups that receive city funds would be required to give same-sex couples medical benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples and rent a church hall to a support group for lesbian couples.

Peter Rosenstein of the Campaign for All D.C. Families accused the church of trying to "blackmail the city."

"The issue here is they are using public funds, and to allow people to discriminate with public money is unacceptable," Rosenstein said.

Rosenstein and other gay rights activists have strong support on the council. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the judiciary committee, said the council "will not legislate based on threats."

"The problem with the individual exemption is anybody could discriminate based on their assertion of religious principle," Mendelson said. "There were many people back in the 1950s and '60s, during the civil rights era, that said separation of the races was ordained by God."

Catania, who said he has been the biggest supporter of Catholic Charities on the council, said he is baffled by the church's stance. From 2006 through 2008, Catania said, Catholic Charities received about $8.2 million in city contracts, as well as several hundred thousand dollars' worth this year through his committee.

"If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes," Catania said. He also said Catholic Charities was involved in only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.

Terry Lynch, head of the Downtown Cluster of Congregations, said he did not know of any other group in the city that was making such a threat.

"I've not seen any spillover into programming. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen if [the bill] passes," he said.

Cheh said she hopes the Catholic Church will reconsider its stance.

"Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue?" Cheh asked. "I hope, in the silver light of day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this threat."

Pulling social services (Soup kitchens, clothing drives, food banks, homeless shelters ect) this close to winter and Christmas when they would matter most, especially in some cases where it would be the difference between life and death for some people, is a horrible thing to do.

When you get down too it, the city has every right to ask the church to obey discrimination laws, since the Church is using public funds to carry out its social service programs, and discriminating against a group of the public while using those funds is illegal.

I myself don't agree with the idea of same sex marriages, and homosexuality in general, but I'm also not a closed minded idiot. Those are my personal beliefs and I keep them as such, I don't let them influence how I treat other people. In fact, its quite the opposite. Some of my best friends are gay.

It is not my place, nor is it the church's, to dictate policy or law. Both Canada and the US actually have amendments in their constitutions and bill of rights prohibiting the influence of the Church on State (government) issues.

All this is saying to me is that the Church is Blackmailing the city into getting what it wants, and that is just wrong.

I'd love to go up to the Archdiocese and ask them "If you do what you're threatening, what would Jesus say if he were here?"

I'm pretty sure they would reverse their stance on the issue.

Now, I know that Same Sex Marriage is a touchy issue, which is why I'm going to limit the debate on the issue.

We're not here to debate the existence of Same Sex Marriage, but rather to debate the actions of the Catholic church as right or wrong.

Sadly Aceman67 there is little that Washington D.C. can do in this matter. Christian vanity trumps human interest. And while rhetorically you can recite bible verse and the fact that in the bible there is no heiarchy of sin the Catholic church doesn't answer to the bible, they answer to the Most Holy Father the Pope. He runs the show. This is the problem with America though. The Catholic church could instantly stop those services if they want and yes it would displace many people and cause much turmoil in the local government we can't stop them.

On a side note. I have been many places on this Earth. Many. And while this country has several flaws, and I mean several, the rights we are allowed to exercise cause strife they also make Republics great. What kind of job you have, who you will marry, and what education you get are determined pretty much by birth, location and what family you come from in many places. Hell I even know of a country where your ancestral home is taken into consideration for jobs. Citizen hip is near impossible to get some places if you have foreign grandparents. The list of restrictions imposed on others that I have seen can go on.

We have to take the good with the bad even if it means that certain groups can make as many "Dick moves" as they want.

As far as dick moves go, this is a pretty good one. Especially announcing it now. Not giving the city a lot of time to make arrangements come winter.
Let's hope Washington D.C. holds steady on this. It should make the catholic church look bad enough so that they will be forced to relent.

That's pretty F-ed up! It's okay for a bunch of Catholic priests to touch little boys--who just so happen to be the same sex and in a handful of cases, the instances have been denied or ignored--but a gay couple can't get married??? Dick move, indeed!

I completely have missed something here. Why is everyone just blaming the church?

You argue that the church should be "required" to obey discrimination laws because they provide services based on money given by the government?

I ask, why can't the government just take the money and pay the people providing the work directly leaving the church out altogether?

Separation of church and state after all.

If the government wants to start telling the church what they "have" to do based on money being provided then I respect the church's decision to back out. At the same time there is nothing keeping the state from continuing to provide the services without the church being involved if they are already paying for it. What keeps the state from paying those people as employees? Can't find workers on short notice? Please, look at the unemployment rate, you really want to tell me they couldn't find workers? That's BS, the state doesn't want to pay people directly because they would also have to pay state benefits as well.

I don't agree at all that the church is being unreasonable for standing up for it's beliefs, it is their decision. Now don't get me wrong, I am not letting the church off the hook. They aren't suppose to be using state funds for this kind of thing. They are suppose to be doing it at out of the church's offerings and tithes. The Catholic Church isn't poor in anyway shape or form and can easily provide these services without state funds and completely make the law inapplicable to them.

Both sides are wrong. The church should be doing it on their own and the state should be doing it as well on it's own. That is the way things are suppose to work. The real issue is that they are working together instead of separately and because of it they are playing games with the lives of people who need help the worst. That is a real shame.

The church is threatening to stop the social services it provides, albeit with government assistance in the form of money and building space, including the ones with out government assistance as well, if the city does not remove the requirement that would force the church from Discriminating against Homosexuals because the law would force them to give out benefits normally given to straight couples to homosexual couples as well, as in line with the city's new policy being brought about by the new Same Sex Marriage bill.

So when you get down to it, its about money, and the church not wanting to spend it on a portion of the population it doesn't approve of, and they're blackmailing the city by withholding social services if they don't get their way.

What if Washington DC started taxing churches?
I'm sure two can play the blackmailing game. Someting is horribly wrong if no one in Washington DC can turn the tables on those antiquated, hypocritical, boy-rapists who worship 2000 yr old corpses nailed to sticks.........

What if Washington DC started taxing churches?
I'm sure two can play the blackmailing game. Someting is horribly wrong if no one in Washington DC can turn the tables on those antiquated, hypocritical, boy-rapists who worship 2000 yr old corpses nailed to sticks.........

Not all churches are tax exempt. Also regardless of how you feel about the Catholic church it is completely wrong to generalize all Catholics on the misbehaving of a few of them. Jeffrey Dahmer was a white man, should we classify all white guys as homicidal maniacs because of that? Classifing all Catholics as "boy-rapists" is the same logic.

@ Ace, I understand it is about money as well as each side pushing their position on the same sex marriage bill. But what I am saying is that each side is wrong for mixing the help of the needy into this. There is no reason each side can't help the needy on their own without involving the other but they don't do that which is why this is even an issue. If the church did what is suppose to from a biblical perspective then they would help the needy out of their own pocket and if the government did what they should they would help the needy without involving a religious organization. Fact is the church is in the wrong and so is the government.

The battle of the Same Sex Marriage Bill should not be even be apart of this and I agree that it is sad people may suffer if each side doesn't grow up and start going about this all in the correct manner.

I am just not going to say the Catholics are the only ones at fault here.